[foolfoolz]

sunlight also damages DNA

i think most people know drinking isn’t good for you. people aren’t defending alcohol they’re defending the social value they receive from drinking; and it brings a lot. most people don’t drink that much anyway because it’s not great for you. alcohol usage is highly concentrated on alcoholics who drink like 90% of all alcohol produced

id say of these 3 the one people go to crazy lengths to avoid doing anything about is BMI. everyone knows it’s one of the biggest if they not biggest co-morbidities identified yet a good portion of the world has high BMI and does nothing about it

[raunak]

not only does a good portion of the world have high BMI and does nothing about it, we as a country have now gone so far as to say it's 'OK' to have a high BMI. I know in advance this comment will be misinterpreted, but it's genuinely sad that our advertisements, education, and social media all parrot the same message that it's okay to be overweight.

[jnovek]

I think the intended message of these campaigns isn’t that high BMI is considered healthy; rather, it’s that making people feel bad for having high BMI is doing them no favors in the journey to solve a very difficult problem. They are campaigns reminding people to be nice.

I think that’s a good message. I certainly feel badly for obese people because, however they got there, they’re going to have a hell of a time getting back to a healthy body size.

I do agree that many people lose that key part of the message when they pass it on.

[parineum]

> rather, it’s that making people feel bad for having high BMI is doing them no favors in the journey to solve a very difficult problem. They are campaigns reminding people to be nice.

Feeling bad about your weight is a good motivator to lose weight. It might be bad for your mental health and it could do absolutely nothing for some people but the vast majority of people who keep their weight in check and/or are motivated to lose weight do so more for social reasons than they do for health reasons.

Compared to something like alcoholism, being overweight (which can be similarly deadly) is treated much differently. For alcoholism, the attitude has been changing from "alcoholics are degenerates with weak wills" to "alcoholism is a disease and these people need help" where the attitude toward obesity is going from "fat people are disgusting people who have no self control" to "big is beautiful".

The difference is with alcoholism the message goes from disdain to support but he solution remains the same, a great deal of personal work to solve the problem. With obesity, the message goes from disdain to acceptance and the solution is to just not bring it up.

[bildung]

> Feeling bad about your weight is a good motivator to lose weight.

Educationalist here, actually it isn't :) For many people, this just makes you feel bad - and that's it. For that feeling to result in meaningful action a bunch of conditions have to be met, e.g. the absence of eating disorders (including things like stress eating etc.), a concept of self-efficacy (the idea that one actually is able to change out of one's own will), impulse control, knowledge about food and dieting, the time and money to eat healthier and so on. Often people are perfectly aware that their behaviour is unhealthy, but they lack one or more of those conditions. It therefore is better to focus on providing people the actual means to change (knowledge, methods, better food in school and at work, a supportive environment, taxation to make unhealthy food/drugs more expensive (a thing in the EU)).

Note that I'm fully in support of emphasizing the unhealthy aspects of obesity, though. Providing the facts often just isn't enough.

[parineum]

> Educationalist here, actually it isn't :) For many people, this just makes you feel bad - and that's it.

Are you just asking overweight people or are you asking all people? The people who are overweight today are obviously the group of people for which social pressure is ineffective. I'm talking about all people including the people who are successfully at a healthy weight.

[PuppyTailWags]

Wait, why would we study people at a healthy weight whether or not shame is an effective strategy to lose weight? I am genuinely confused why someone at a healthy weight would be the person to ask, because for all we know they never had weight to lose.

[bildung]

I had overweight people in mind. For both cases I'd argue that emphasizing the benefits of healty weight and the means of getting to/staying at that weight is the more effective approach, though.

[notch656a]

Some people don't respond to motivators, that isn't a reason to stop (generally) motivating.

[bildung]

My point was more that feeling bad, by itself, actually is a demotivator. I'm all for motivating! But that would mean emphasizing e.g. the health benefits, or positive reinforcement of actual lifestyle changes.

[hutzlibu]

"Feeling bad about your weight is a good motivator to lose weight"

Only if you think you have realistic chances of loosing that weight.

Otherwise that bad feeling will ... get eaten up.

[JediLuke]

Too little anxiety leads to laziness, but too much is crippling. Like most things you need to find the sweet spot.

Be anxious, not too much. Mostly over things within your control.

[saiya-jin]

Sure, but if you overdo your campaign to prevent shaming (and I can say what happens now in US is definitely in that territory for quite some time), than even a slightest hint that obesity is something bad and should be actually worked on to get rid of becomes shamed too.

Then it becomes (well, became) the next taboo that nobody wants to touch with a 10 feet pole since its playing with a PR suicide.

And so we have the world we have, and we reached it step by step by exactly this logic. Simple thing is, fat people need help from society just like drug addicts, yet everybody desperately tries to avoid this framing, and thus help is often not deemed necessary/worth the risk of offending. Thus people die needlessly just that somebody doesn't have hurt feelings.

[jnovek]

I don’t think we’re past — or even approaching — some sort of threshold where we’ve overdone compassion in America. In fact, studies have shown that the more compassion shown to fat people, the more likely they are to seek help [1].

I deal with chronic pain and I’m at the hospital or clinic frequently, often multiple times per week. As someone who is in that environment quite a bit, I can assure you that the dangers of obesity are very clearly and openly discussed; frankly, you can’t walk two steps in a hospital without seeing some sort of PSA about the dangers of obesity.

Your mental model just doesn’t track with what I’ve seen again and again in reality.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6565398/

[pessimizer]

There's absolutely no necessity to shame anyone for being fat. You can be concerned about it with your friends and loved ones, and express that concern if the relationship you have is of a character where you're busybodies about each others' health. There are very few people in your life who would appreciate or desire that criticism from you.

The people being told to shut up about it are usually abusing strangers or enemies, and feel very abused and targeted for being criticized for targeting and abusing people. If you were talking about being fat with someone you obviously care about and cares about you, they'd take it in that spirit. If you shamed them for it, they'd hopefully end that fucked up abusive relationship. The only thing I would ever shame a loved one for is their abuse of other people. Otherwise, I want to lift them up, not tear them down.

[soco]

They are unfortunately mixing up the messages there. It's one thing to fight the shame associated with body appearance (this should be the real fight), and another thing to claim BMI has no significance on health risks (which is what often the argument boils down). There are people comfortable with smoking, there are people comfortable with their weight too, I just hope both know the increased risks to which they are exposed. However shaming the one or the other is just disgusting, especially when it appeals to a "tradition".

[hinkley]

I have started to wonder if there won't be a war at some point where Survival of the Fittest becomes a very literal factor in who wins. We seem to be rapidly circling back to the military superiority of the Hoplite.

[Ekaros]

Depending on location some sunlight exposure is certainly beneficial at least part of the year. Though that doesn't mean tanning or such activities are not harmful. Comes down to the reality that some times dose really matters.

[nradov]

Regular sunlight exposure is correlated with lower all-cause mortality.

https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12251

[oaktrout]

True in women according to that study. Also they didn't ask specifically about sun exposure avoidance, they asked things like "Do you go abroad on holiday to swim and sunbathe". People on dialysis don't go abroad and people who can't swim secondary to poor health don't go swimming abroad. A poorly designed study with too many confounders imo.

[nradov]

The point is that for individual lifestyle decisions you can't take a reductionist approach and look at individual factors in isolation. Maybe moderate sunlight exposure causes DNA damage, but so what? Does it actually reduce lifespan (or healthspan)? Probably not, or at least we don't have any reliable evidence that it does.

[oaktrout]

I agree. I think it's also reductionist to say sun avoidance increases mortality, at least based on the evidence we have.

[ineptech]

They controlled for all the big health and lifestyle confounds, as described in the abstract, it was a huge study (1/5 of the female population of southern Sweden), they tracked the subjects for 20 years. Man if that's not good enough for you I don't think anything will be.

[oaktrout]

My issue with the study wasn't study size or duration, it was the questionarre. People who go to holiday in the mountains or go swimming are probably healthier. They could have just asked about sun exposure "how many days in the past month have you spent more than 2 hours in the sun". Also, why just study women? Did their analysis not pan out when they used men?

[ineptech]

They asked four questions that all pertain to sun exposure and weighted them into a single metric. Seemed pretty reasonable to me. You may find interesting a recent article on how academia's stance on the benefits/dangers of sun exposure has changed in the past few decades, including that study specifically, how it was received, and what criticisms and accolades it's received.

https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...

[oaktrout]

"Outside online" does not seem like an unbiased source on this issue. Asking four questions that pertain to something does not make a good measure of that something. Agree to disagree on this one.

This is coming from someone who spends a lot of time in the sun. Melanoma was never going to have much of an impact on mortality at the population level, the incidence of high grade melanoma is far too low.

[SoftTalker]

Also drinking too much alcohol makes you feel like shit the next day, so it's somewhat self limiting (granted, some people have less self-control while drinking than others).

[thrown_22]

> sunlight also damages DNA

Not when there is a functioning ozone layer.

[hinkley]

Even with a functioning ozone layer, and magnetosphere.

The thing with UV light though is that it also kills surface bacteria and is involved in vitamin D production. It's very like minerals in that way. Not enough kills you, but it's easy to go from too little to way too much.